Mirror of Russian counter -revolution

By the centenary of Alexander Solzhenitsyn

• Alexander Solzhenitsyn - a writer who made the relevant theme of the Stalinist camps, the dissident forever driven by the Soviet government, is a real legend of the twentieth century.
• Solzhenitsyn is one of the few Russian writers whose works influenced the political life of Russia.
• In the USSR, the texts of Solzhenitsyn came in perestroika. The New World magazine in 1990 was published over 2 million, as Solzhenitsyn was printed there.
• Today, Solzhenitsyn's works are studied at school, it turns into the figure of the last classic that gives ready -made answers to many questions.
• The ideology of Solzhenitsyn fits into the canon of the Russian "clip", but most likely, he would not approve much of what was happening today in the country.

Sergey Medvedev: December 11 marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn. Both the anniversary of this date, and the very size of this figure is set in an epic way. This is probably the last great writer of the Russian land, the man who taught, prophesied and played a significant role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. What role does he play today in our thoughts, in our minds, in Russian literature?

Correspondent: Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a raid writer and Nobel laureate. He talked about the problem of relations between man and the state, society and personality, he reproached the Russian people for simplicity and trusting and experienced a sense of endless compassion and respect. Among his most famous works are “One Day of Ivan Denisovich”, “The First Circle”, “The Gulag Archipelago”.

Video version of the program
After graduating from the Physics and Mathematics Faculty in Rostov, in 1941 Solzhenitsyn was mobilized. At the front, the writer continued to be interested in public life, began to critically speak about Stalin's policy. By the end of the war, he rose to the captain, received the Order of the Red Star. And in 1945 he was accused of espionage and struggle against the working class and sentenced to 8 years of forced labor camps and eternal exile. Solzhenitsyn will later describe the camp days in his works, which will be edited "under censorship" more than once.

In the 1960-70s, the writer began to participate in the dissident movement, lost the opportunity to be printed and perform. The KGB created a special unit that was engaged in its development. From this moment, the work of Solzhenitsyn was published only in Samizdat or abroad. In 1974, he was accused of treason, deprived of Soviet citizenship and sent from the USSR. Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia in 1994. Today, his works are studied in schools and universities, and 2018 was declared the year of Alexander Solzhenitsyn in Russia.

Sergey Medvedev: We guest Daniil Tsygankov , Associate Professor of the Higher School , and Mikhail Golubkov , Head of the Department of the latest Russian literature and the modern literary process of the philological faculty of Moscow State University .

I’ll start with the name of one of Solzhenitsyn’s most famous books - “a calf with an oak” butted. It would seem that the oak was curved, collapsed, but there is no Solzhenitsyn, and the oak was revived, as it seems, in all its glory. Is Solzhenitsyn’s role, the individual confrontation of man and the state, man and power, in the collapse of the Soviet Union is so great?

Mikhail Golubkov: Self -irony is also manifested here: to call himself a calf, and the state with which he fights is oak. On the other hand, why is it a small role? Great! I think he was one of those whose efforts collapsed.

Sergey Medvedev: But the current non -Soviet revival ... Solzhenitsyn, by and large, did not live to see him. How would Solzhenitsyn react today to the return of all those models and things that he fought with?

We remember his words: "I will not go to the war with Ukraine and I will not let my children"

Daniil Tsygankov: I believe that Solzhenitsyn would be treated differently to different processes. He would sharply protest against the persecution, for example, Yuri Dmitriev in Karelia, when, in a clearly fabricated case, a person is avenged for restoring historical memory. As for the situation of the reunification of Sevastopol with Russia, Solzhenitsyn would rather sympathize with this. The war in the Donbass, I believe, would be a great shock for him. We remember his words: "I will not go to the war with Ukraine and I will not let my children."

There cannot be a single picture if we have the right to guess what Alexander Isaevich would say for one or another reason. He might be silent in general, because we know: very often, when he plunged into the scripture of some text, he did not react, did not answer correspondents. And this offended either the media or some people: why is Solzhenitsyn is silent, he must make a statement!

Sergey Medvedev: He was always an anti -Soviet or did he become him? After all, as I understand it, in Khrushchev’s times, during the “New World” of Twardowski, he sincerely tried to integrate, integrate into this system.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 1994

Mikhail Golubkov: I think no. There is a fundamental distance between him and Twardowski with Lakshin: he categorically refused to follow their ideology, that is, the ideology of sixties: it was good Lenin, and there was evil Stalin. He categorically did not accept this. And in general, after the camp, when we recognized him as a writer, we see a person with an absolutely formed ideology.

If you return to the question of how he would perceive the current situation, I think that there simply cannot be an answer. There are very many things that are difficult to understand. Say, Solzhenitsyn returns under Yeltsin to Russia and writes the book "Russia in the collapse", that is, shows catastrophism of the situation that was formed under Yeltsin. He refuses the Order of Andrew the First -Called - this is also a colossal political gesture. And after that he finds himself in a good relationship with Putin: Putin comes to his house, drinks tea. I think this is due to the fact that Solzhenitsyn saw, I felt: Russia rises from the collapse. Otherwise, I cannot explain this situation for myself.

Sergey Medvedev: I wonder what was his attitude to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991? Is this not exhausted by the famous phrase of Zinoviev that "they rushed into communism, but fell into Russia"? Did Solzhenitsyn apply it to himself?

Daniil Tsygankov: I think, here Alexander Isaevich adhered to about the same look as his ideological or ideological predecessor of the liberal-conservative direction of Russian intellectual thought, Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin . He has a brochure "Soviet Union - not Russia." For Solzhenitsyn, of course, the departure of Russia from the USSR was a liberation from the empire. Another thing is that it seemed to him: this process can be made to be any controlled, the Union of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia is possible. Indeed, he asked questions about the northern regions ...

Sergey Medvedev: Northern Kazakhstan.

Daniil Tsygankov: Yes, devoted to Kazakhstan during some other overexcitation of administrative borders. He was not completely consistent to say that everyone should let go, or he was stipulated: yes, of course, you can, but within his borders. There is a very thin line that kept the Yugoslav script in itself, but it was not obligatory. We know the peaceful divorce of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The future was not automatically predicted. Everything depended on specific politicians, on their goodwill.

Sergey Medvedev: If you enter Solzhenitsyn into the Russian intellectual tradition, then is it Slavophilism, soilism?

Mikhail Golubkov: No, I think there are figures that do not fit into anything. It seems to me that Solzhenitsyn does not fit into Slavophilism or soilism. This is a very complex system.

Sergey Medvedev: Searching for the language, romanticization of Russian archaic, language - is it all from the 19th century?

Mikhail Golubkov: It seems to me that this is simply the desire to remind what language we have lost. This is a conversation about what can be done today.

He must be called a monarchist, but he is a monarchist in a specific specific situation. After the king renounced, there can be no talk of any monarchism. He has a completely different ideology. The same thing here. It seems to me that this is a person who possessed a colossal number of ideas that were balanced, connected in this very complex system.

This is an amazing innovator and at the same time a conservative. His things are completely innovative. Modernism, postmodernism, and the latest concepts that only now appear in literature are visible there. And at the same time, his conservatism, traditionalism are visible. How does it all combine?! He created an amazing aesthetics.

Sergey Medvedev: He completely rejects the revolution - both February and October 1917?

Mikhail Golubkov: Yes, of course.

Sergey Medvedev: But in this case, in addition, he was horrified by the people's elements in February 1917. And he says that "thanks to the terror of the Bolsheviks, he managed to stop the revelry of the people's elements."

Mikhail Golubkov

Mikhail Golubkov: This is only a fragment of his thoughts. Actually, the very story of the spelling of the Red Wheel is a conversation that it all started earlier, in August of the fourteenth. I can hardly imagine that he would accept the terror of the Bolsheviks. This is a consequence of what happened in 1914. The Samson catastrophe - it is this episode that he makes fundamental in the movement of Russia down, and if we take earlier, then the murder of Stolypin: here, from his point of view, is the catastrophe that led to the revolution.

Daniil Tsygankov: If Stolypin were alive and retired, then, most likely, he would suppress the February revolution - this is Solzhenitsyn's thought. Honestly, I do not remember that he somehow supported the Bolshevik terror.

Sergey Medvedev: He talked about the insufficient rigidity of the authorities in the suppression of this folk element.

Daniil Tsygankov: He said that "the Bolsheviks picked up the power that was lying on earth." It's true. There is the only thing where Solzhenitsyn writes about terror is the third volume of the “archipelago”, for which he later had to make excuses in the West, in the USA. He says that these were completely terrible conditions, cutting informers - it was a reaction accumulated over decades. I don’t really understand why Alexander Isaevich did not bring Jefferson’s thought that was obvious to the American ear that “the Freedom Tree should be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Of course, there is no terror, there the people have the right to an uprising.

Sergey Medvedev: This is one of the things that entered the American Declaration of Independence.

Daniil Tsygankov: I think he did not accept February, but this did not happen right away. As I understand it, he was already in the USA and began to work with the Hoover archive. And here there is a gap, relatively speaking, with the liberal part of the dissident spectrum. And already working with archives, and most importantly, with memories, it changes its design that Russia fell in February 1917, and then the situation was uncontrollable.

Sergey Medvedev: Yes, first the renunciation of the Gulag, Stalinism, Leninism, and then the renunciation of the revolution.

Mikhail Golubkov: I would not agree. When he was in an eternal settlement, he already possessed the political concept that we know. In 1970, he was already far from the idealization of February. In my opinion, it has already formed as a political figure in the camp as a result of communication with interesting people.

Sergey Medvedev: Not only renunciation of February, from the revolution, but also the renunciation of Art Nouveau. I see him with a strong anti -Modernist thinker.

His things are absolutely innovative, modernism and postmodernism are visible there, and at the same time - conservatism, traditionalism

Mikhail Golubkov: I agree. He does not accept communism, and he does not accept Western values. But the West has a lot of questions for him. He rejects those values that already seem absolute. This is not only a speech in Harvard, but also a later book Two Together Together. Neither patriotic people here, nor people with liberal values in the West, can forgive this book. He is again there or there.

Sergey Medvedev: There is a contrast: Solzhenitsyn - Shalamov ... How can we describe his attitude to the camp, to the Gulag?

Daniil Tsygankov: Perhaps Solzhenitsyn follows the Christian tradition. Shafarevich has in one of the articles that "Russia has passed through death and maybe there is hope for its resurrection." Solzhenitsyn literally went almost through death: he was mortally ill. And his relationship with Shalamov was very difficult.

Sergey Medvedev: Is this jealousy?

Daniil Tsygankov: There is always competition in the literary field. In a sense, the same competition was between Solzhenitsyn and Sholokhov. Who is the first writer of the Russian land - the author of the "Quiet Don" or the author of the "Circle of the First" and "Ivan Denisovich"? I think that is why Solzhenitsyn remembered this story with the authorship of the "Quiet Don" and very actively supported it.

Sergey Medvedev: Solzhenitsyn has Cossack roots.

Daniil Tsygankov: Yes, he is from the south: along the maternal line, these are rich peasants, Shcherbaki. This, by the way, explains why he says that he does not imagine a war with Ukraine: he himself is half a Ukrainian. And on the other hand, his ancestors Solzhenitsyn to the Caucasus moved rather as part of some expansion of the Moscow state. But, judging by some archival searches, they no longer got along with the authorities, they were all the time from Petrovsky officials all the time.

Therefore, for Solzhenitsyn (returning to the question of his dissidents), the situation was changing. Of course (he writes about this), it was a hobby for the late school years and university. Then the Gulag layer by the layer removes his previous beliefs, and he returns back to faith, to the memories of childhood, that is, to his primary socialization. When the publication of "Ivan Denisovich" opens the opportunity to influence the first persons, a good tactician Solzhenitsyn tries to use this. In my opinion, there were two such points of the excess - this is a non -renegade of the Lenin Prize, and then Khrushchev’s resignation and the arrest of the archive. All these three blows showed him that some peaceful integration is impossible. And he returns to his camp sides - to hit the chuckle first. He again becomes an armored convict, for which the Soviet government was completely not ready. She did not understand - either to send him, or to plant him, or to kill him.

Mikhail Golubkov: It is no longer possible to plant. But there were attempts at the murder.

Daniil Tsygankov

Daniil Tsygankov: Yes, they tried to poison him nearby poison when he was on a trip. Nothing happened. In the end, it was decided that it could be sent. And here, of course, I think, the Soviet government greatly underestimated his abilities of the rhetoric and the one that he had, and most importantly, the world glory that the press brought him and, above all, the socialist left press, since Solzhenitsyn was perceived as a supporter of “cleansed socialism” ... hence all the response of the media. This is just disappointed love: the idol is a monarchist, a retrograde, and hence such a rage.

Sergey Medvedev: Yes, Solzhenitsyn’s alienation from the human rights movement, from the intellectual movement, his attitude to the intelligentsia ... When this gap began - with the retired Khrushchev?

Mikhail Golubkov: I think when communicating with the "new world." When he came to the "New World", he had great sympathies and respect for Twardowski. He is outraged by the phrase of Lakshin: "I will say what I want." And Solzhenitsyn does not want censorship at all. That's the difference - it goes to the end. Maybe, of course, I idealize this figure, but this is the last great Russian writer of the second half of the twentieth century. Now there is no figure that could be compared with him. This, of course, is primarily associated with its artistic capabilities, which seem huge to me! This is a genius! And this is due to his political views - to go to the end! And this caused irritation both on the right and on the left.

He cannot be called either a monarchist or a supporter of democracy, since he understands that democracy is not a panacea.

Sergey Medvedev: The same Harvard speech.

Mikhail Golubkov: Of course.

Sergey Medvedev: He is inconvenient for everyone. It does not fit anywhere - neither to the liberals, nor to the monarchists, nor to the conservatives. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in the current large ideological field it is very convenient, all the more dead, especially when its representative is the widow of Natalya Dmitrievna, who is very instructive and says absolutely “right” things. But the current discourse is incredibly integrative-this is such a machine that digests everything to itself: both the heroes-Panfilov, and monarchists, and red commanders, and anyone. Solzhenitsyn fits very well into this security canon.

Mikhail Golubkov: I don't think so. Very few understand what Solzhenitsyn is. There are a huge number of myths about Solzhenitsyn. The first myth: Solzhenitsyn is a lie, everything lied, the storyteller Andersen. It turns out that there was no Gulag, nothing (we recall that Voinovich supported this myth in every possible way).

Another myth is that he is a monarchist. The third myth is that he supports the current government. It is necessary to read at least "August of the fourteenth", "The Gulag Archipelago" is also a work of art. And this is not! Maybe that's why you need to use some mythology - this is a person with a beard who supports ...

Sergey Medvedev: Like a thick of our days. Это то, что Россия предъявляет миру.

Михаил Голубков: Но это миф! А что бы он сказал сейчас? А нам очень не хватает его живого. Я думаю, для Солженицына было совершенно очевидно, что Крым – это часть России, но он был бы резко против возвращения Крыма. Он увидел бы в этом не победу нынешней политической системы, а ловушку и проигрыш. И он увидел бы, что нужно было делать это не в 2014 году, а в 2010-м, а может быть, в 2008-м, но как-то по-другому. По крайней мере, прозевать произошедший там переворот – какая уж тут победа? А что касается Донбасса, я думаю, для него это была бы просто постоянно кровоточащая рана.

Лагерная телогрейка Александра Солженицына

Даниил Цыганков: Когда мы говорим, что Солженицын – это Толстой, это понятно. "Война и мир", "Красное колесо" – и там, и там большие батальные сцены, и там, и там затрагиваются переломные для общества моменты, историософия, попытка через ретроспективный взгляд предложить какую-то программу будущего России.

Мы говорили о старом ретроградном языке Александра Исаевича – это протопоп Аввакум . "Новомирские" редактора, получив "Ивана Денисовича", пытались переставлять запятые, поражались каким-то неизвестным словам. И Солженицын, и Аввакум беседовали напрямую с руководителями (Аввакум – с царем Алексеем Михайловичем). И Аввакум, и Солженицын в какие-то моменты старались повлиять в рамках возможного. Аввакум участвует в кружке боголюбцев, то есть общается с Никоном, разрыв происходит позже. Грамота Аввакума и письма Солженицына, обращенные к патриарху, съезду писателей, вождям Советского Союза, – этот жанр тоже похож. И главное, их связывает готовность, если что, пойти на смерть. Поэтому Солженицын так повлиял на изменения, в том числе и на распад Советского Союза, на западные элиты? У него была готовность…

Сергей Медведев: Да, готовность страдать, готовность принять муку.

Даниил Цыганков: И даже умереть. Они с Натальей Дмитриевной решили, что даже угроза детям не остановит публикации "Архипелага".

Сергей Медведев: Этот пророческий замес совершенно не типичен для литературы ХХ века.

О том, каким воспринимают Солженицына нынешние школьники, рассуждает Михаил Павловец , преподаватель лицея ВШЭ.

Михаил Павловец: То, что пытается донести Солженицын, то, что пытается донести учитель, который обязан преподавать Солженицына, и то, как воспринимают Солженицына дети, – это три разных Солженицына. Для самого писателя главная проблема – это ситуация свободного человека в условиях несвободы: как, оказавшись в условиях лагеря, человек может остаться собой. "Один день Ивана Денисовича" – это действительно энциклопедия лагерной жизни.

С учителями все гораздо сложнее. Дело в том, что Солженицын сейчас у нас превращается в фигуру последнего классика. Солженицына нужно воспевать, возвеличивать, из него нужно делать писателя, который формулирует великие глубокие мысли. Таким образом, происходит некая лакировка Солженицына, некое превращение его из живого, проблемного, тяжело мыслящего писателя в сборник готовых ответов на какие-то вопросы.

Есть учителя, которых это раздражает. Я сталкивался с глубоким неприятием Солженицына со стороны учителей. И я понял, что такое насаждение Солженицына, говоря словами Пастернака, "как картошки при Екатерине", приводит к прямо противоположному эффекту. Учитель не только не хочет его давать, он будет делать все, чтобы этот писатель вызывал и у детей такие же эмоции, как и у него.

Выросло поколение школьников, для которых важна правда, пусть даже страшная и неприятная

Если же говорить о школьниках, то выросло поколение, для которых тема лагерей важна, интересна, глубока. Я специально говорил об этом со своими ребятами. Для них "Иван Денисович" – это книга, которую они воспринимают как полудокументальную. Они не очень видят художественную сторону, но для них важна правда, пусть даже страшная и неприятная.

В том, как Солженицын воспринимался в перестройку, в начале нулевых годов и сейчас, можно видеть достаточно противоречивую динамику. Журнал "Новый мир" в 90-м году выходил тиражом свыше 2 миллионов именно потому, что там печатался Солженицын. И для многих то, что он писал, было абсолютным открытием, шоком. Но в нулевые годы произошло некоторое пресыщение или возникла иллюзия, что мы уже достаточно знаем – зачем же в этом копаться? А сейчас я вижу, что интерес растет, потому что идет общая политизация современной молодежи, и в последнее время очень много споров о том, нужна ли тема лагеря и как ее оценивать.

Сергей Медведев: В какой момент Солженицын осознал себя пророком? Это было уже после рака: бог спас его от рака? У него же было сознание богоизбранности.

Михаил Голубков: Конечно, рак – это тот момент, когда это укрепилось. Но мне кажется, оно было изначально, он всегда знал, что станет писателем. Но каким писателем, говорил он, если бы не лагерь? Советским. Вот таким писателем он не хотел стать. И, может быть, действительно, ощущение писательства – это богоизбранность.

Сергей Медведев: Помните эпизод, когда он оставил в электричке рукопись "Архипелага" и ему ее вернули? Это просто чудесное спасение!

Даниил Цыганков: С "Архипелагом" вообще происходили разные приключения. Самый известный – Елизавета Воронянская не сожгла экземпляр, и его захватил КГБ. После этого Солженицын дал команду печатать. И тут какое-то стечение обстоятельств – и самоубийство Воронянской…

Сергей Медведев: Не все знают этот эпизод ее общения с КГБ.

Даниил Цыганков: После четырехдневного допроса, где ее достаточно быстро сломали, они выдала, где он хранится, и покончила самоубийством. Одна из сильнейших метафор: Солженицын говорит, что, кроме всех этих миллионов жертв, о которых говорится в "Архипелаге", еще качается труп этой несчастной женщины. В этом смысле Солженицын совершенно беспощаден как ритор в борьбе с советской властью. Это просто удары на разрушение.

Все сравнивали Солженицына с Лениным, но тут я не соглашусь. Мне кажется, дух раскола пронизывал всех крупных литераторов ХХ века. Ленин тоже в каком-то смысле был литератором (и политиком). Интересно, что Солженицын 1967 года в каком-то смысле перестает быть писателем и становится политиком. Письмо съезду – это действие политика.

Сергей Медведев: Сейчас столетие не только Солженицына, но и огромного века русской литературы и того периода, когда литература могла менять действительность. Солженицын – это книги, которые дали ту реальность, в которой мы сегодня живем, с благодарностью вспоминая его.